Pit-bull law comes off Lowell books

LOWELL -- After years of controversial debate regarding enforcement against aggressive dogs, parts of the city's Responsible Pit Bull Ownership Ordinance will no longer be enforceable.

Last summer, the state Legislature passed extensive legislation regulating animal control. A provision of the law prohibits breed-specific regulation, like Lowell's.

The legislation went in effect Oct. 31.

Lowell's ordinance required pit-bull owners to spay or neuter their dog, register with the City Clerk's Office and required that when the dog was off the owner's property, keep it on a leash and have them wear a muzzle or be secured in a temporary enclosure.

The ordinance was passed in response to a spate of pit-bull attacks and a concern of an overpopulation of pit bulls in the city.

About a dozen Massachusetts communities, including Boston and Worcester, also have some type of ordinance regulating pit bulls that will have to be taken off the books.

City Solicitor Christine O'Connor said Assistant City Solicitor Dave Fenton has prepared a 27-page rewrite of the ordinance, which will be brought before City Council in about a week.

"In the meantime, those sections of our ordinance which currently conflict with the law will not be enforced," O'Connor wrote.

Mike Keiley of the city's Animal Advisory Committee and director of the MSPCA's Noble Family Animal Care and Adoption Center in Methuen, who was opposed to the pit-bull ordinance, said residents should not be concerned the city will be less safe now that the pit-bull ordinance is no longer in effect.

Advertisement

He said the city's potentially dangerous or dangerous dog ordinance, which was passed before the pit-bull ordinance, allows the city to enforce rules against dogs that have exhibited aggressive behavior.

Once a dog has attacked or attempted to bite or attack a person or has a tendency to threaten the safety of domestic animals or is involved in dog fighting, drug trafficking or gang activity it can be deemed dangerous.

Once it is deemed dangerous, the dog must be kept indoors or locked in a pen or structure. If taken off the property, the dog must be muzzled and on a leash no more than 4 feet long.

The owner can also be fined if noncompliant.

Keiley said the dangerous-dog ordinance was not in effect long enough before the city passed the pit-bull ordinance to be effective.

He said moving the Animal Control Department under the umbrella of the Police Department instead of the Department of Public Works has also helped in enforcement of animal regulations.

"The sergeant in charge of animal control has been doing a much better job ensuring animal control is being held accountable," Keiley said. "Before, nobody was really overseeing it.

"Animal control is in a better position now to take the laws that are in effect and be able to protect people more effectively," he added.

The animal-control legislation also requires each city or town in the state to appoint an animal-control officer and establishes a funding mechanism to train animal-control officers.

The legislation also no longer allows a dog that is deemed dangerous to be removed from a city or town in which the owner lives.

Keiley said the state's stance against prohibiting breed-specific legislation is progressive compared to other states.

"I think it's great that Massachusetts has come up and said that's not right and we're not going to allow that to happen," he said.

Some councilors who supported the pit-bull ordinance when it was passed more than a year ago, have been critical of the new legislation.

It is unclear if the pit-bull ordinance was effective, according to officials.

Since the pit-bull ordinance was passed, The Sun has reported, two pit bulls were ordered euthanized after an attack last October and a pit bull mix was involved in an attack in May and was euthanized.

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of The Sun. So keep it civil.